458 Alden Evolution of Criticism, cited on p. 102, does not concern the Elizabethan period, but belongs under the age of Dryden and that of Coleridge. On p. 115 the name of Mareschal should be included among the early protestants against rigid rules of form (see Lancaster's article in my bibliographical notes below), rather than in connection with the early formalists. In this same section Mr. Clark omits the early Academic de I' Art Poetique of Deimier (1610), A. de Bourbon's Traite de la Comedie et des Spectacles selon la tradition de V eglise (1667; sometimes called a model for Jeremy Collier's Short View), de Norville's translation of La Poetique d'Aristote (1671, the earliest in French), and Dacier's decidedly interesting translation and commentary, La Poetique d'Aristote, traduite en franqois avec des remarques (1692). On p. 172 the mere mention of the name of Kurd as a rhetorical theorist should be supplemented by a reference to his extensive commentary on the Ars Poetica of Horace. On p. 271 it would be well to mention La Motte's most original contribution to dramatic criticism his pioneer argument in favor of the use of prose for the drama (in his Preface to Oedipe and elsewhere). In the same section there should perhaps be found a place for de Gaullyer's Regies de Poetique, tirees d'Aristote, d' Horace, de Despreaux, etc. (1728). On p. 313 or 314 one expects some reference to the vogue of Schicksalstragodie in Germany, and the attacks upon it by Count Platen. On p. 416 there is a mistranslation from Maeter- linck (perhaps only a printer's error): at the close of the selection he is made to say that he is awaiting a new "poet," instead of a new force, to supplant the power of death. (At this point the reader might well be referred to Maeterlinck's later writings, especially Wisdom and Destiny, in which he records his partial success in finding the new power.) On p. 420 one looks for some mention of the progress of recent Shake- speare criticism, especially such epochal works as John Corbin's The Elizabethan Hamlet (1895), Bradley's Shakespearean Trag- edy (1904), Thorndike's Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakespeare (1901), and the recent articles of E. E. Stoll (opening with his paper on "Anachronism in Shakespeare Criticism," Modern Philology, 1910). The bibliographical lists for the aid of students who wish to pursue the subject with some thoroughness are, on the whole, remarkably good, the only conspicuous deficiency being in reference to periodicals, which are covered only by an occasional title, as by accident; this applies not only to the more learned journals, but to such as the Drama Magazine and Poet Lore, which contain a considerable amount of pertinent material. But the bibliography is good enough to be taken as a basis for serious work, and hence deserves to be supplemented for the
convenience of those who may use the book; to that end I
